It's time to wade back into the troubled waters of flood and coastal defence funding in England, because the government unveiled a new plan on Monday. Here's the headline from the Defra press release:

More flood and coastal defence schemes to go ahead under new funding system

Sounds good right? As regular visitors will know, I have been angered by the glaring contradiction between ministers saying that the risk of flooding is rising due to climate change, and then cutting year-on-year funding by over 25%. Over 1000 schemes that were in line for funding no longer have it.

Of the new arrangement, environment minister Richard Benyon said: "This new funding system means more flood defence schemes will benefit from government money so we can protect more people and properties." So the new funding system means more government money, you're thinking. You're wrong. There is no new money to alleviate the risks of floods devastating people's homes and businesses.

The new scheme is in fact an opportunity for you to dip into your own pocket and help fund flood defence schemes. Businesses or developers who stand to benefit from the additional protection a flood defence will bring can also pay part of the cost.

Now that's not necessarily a bad thing in some cases, if voluntary donations tip the balance so a marginal scheme goes ahead. But what does Charles Tucker, chair of the National Flood Forum and representing 200 community groups, think?

I wish government press officers didn't always feel the need to "spin" the news! The fact is that more schemes will NOT go ahead under the new funding arrangements UNLESS local bodies come forward to "top up" the partial funding allocated centrally.

Under the new scheme, each project will be allocated an indicative amount, which in most cases will be less than the cost of the scheme. This means the project CANNOT go ahead as it stands.

Government expects councils, local businesses, utilities and local communities to make up the difference, leverage in other funds, or find ways to make the scheme cheaper. If they don't, the government money will be reallocated elsewhere! With less money available generally, what are the chances that local bodies will be able to find the "top-up" required?

Tucker also told me that the new funding scheme is being implemented for just one year (2011-12) because the "government knows this scheme has many unknowns and risks of unforeseen consequences."

Uncertainty is a genuine fear for people who suffered the devastation of being flooded. "Every time it rains, I start to panic," one victim told me earlier this year. And uncertainty is the criticism of Labour's Mary Creagh, the shadow environment secretary. She told me: "The Government's 'new' funding formula will not provide certainty for the hundreds of communities across the country whose schemes are currently on hold, and need certainty to get insurance."

So instead of rising funding to combat a rising threat, we have falling funding and a call for communities and others to fill the cash gap. Is that Big Society or a big con? You tell me.